ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
September-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 137538 September 3, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. HON. FRANCISCO B. IBAY

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1249 September 4, 2001 - PHIL. GERIATRICS FOUNDATION, ET AL. v. LYDIA QUERUBIN LAYOSA

  • A.M. No. P-00-1373 September 4, 2001 - ELIZABETH A. TIONGCO v. ROGELIO S. MOLINA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-01-1501 September 4, 2001 - JOSEPHINE D. SARMIENTO v. ALBERT S. SALAMAT

  • A.M. No. P-01-1502 September 4, 2001 - CRESENCIO N. BONGALOS v. JOSE R. MONUNGOLH and VICTORIA D. JAMITO

  • A.M. No. P-99-1357 September 4, 2001 - SHERWIN M. BALOLOY v. JOSE B. FLORES

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1651 September 4, 2001 - PROSECUTOR LEO C. TABAO v. JUDGE FRISCO T. LILAGAN

  • G.R. No. 125359 September 4, 2001 - ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO and HECTOR T. RIVERA v. THE COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 126859 September 4, 2001 - YOUSEF AL-GHOUL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127181 September 4, 2001 - LAND BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132709 September 4, 2001 - CAMILO L. SABIO, ET AL. v. INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134490 September 4, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOEL BRAGAT

  • G.R. Nos. 135356-58 September 4, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELECIO SAGARINO

  • G.R. No. 138923 September 4, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANITA AYOLA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1344 September 5, 2001 - LYDIO ARCILLA, ET AL. v. LUCIO PALAYPAYON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128145 September 5, 2001 - J.C. LOPEZ & ASSOCIATES v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133886 September 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. OSCAR PARBA

  • G.R. No. 134101 September 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELINO O. LLANITA

  • G.R. No. 136054 September 5, 2001 - SEVERINA SAN MIGUEL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132714 September 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO LALINGJAMAN

  • G.R. Nos. 139064-66 September 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO ARCE

  • G.R. No. 140529 September 6, 2001 - JOSE P. LOPEZ v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141400 September 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EVANGELINE GANENAS

  • Admin. Case. No. 4863 September 7, 2001 - URBAN BANK v. ATTY. MAGDALENO M. PEÑA

  • G.R. No. 114858-59 September 7, 2001 - COLUMBUS PHILIPPINES BUS CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 126352 September 7, 2001 - GSIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127261 September 7, 2001 - VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129644 September 7, 2001 - CHINA BANKING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131805 September 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO HERMOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132064 September 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAGANI BAYENG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132320 September 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO OJERIO

  • G.R. Nos. 135402-03 September 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IAN GONZAGA

  • G.R. No. 136779 September 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNEL ASUNCION

  • G.R. No. 142065 September 7, 2001 - LENIDO LUMANOG v. HON. JAIME N. SALAZAR

  • G.R. No. 142875 September 7, 2001 - EDGAR AGUSTILO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144877 September 7, 2001 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHIL. v. VERONICA AGUIRRE, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-01-1506 September 10, 2001 - GEORGE S. BICBIC v. DHALIA E. BORROMEO

  • G.R. Nos. 104769 & 135016 September 10, 2001 - AFP MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118943 September 10, 2001 - MARIO HORNALES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130362 September 10, 2001 - INT’L FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES (PHIL.) v. MERLIN J. ARGOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138485 September 10, 2001 - DR. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. 141970 September 10, 2001 - METROPOLITAN BANK v. FLORO T. ALEJO

  • G.R. No. 145588 September 10, 2001 - ESPERIDION LOPEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140398 September 11, 2001 - FRANCISCO DELA MERCED, ET AL. v. GSIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121877 September 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ERLINDA GONZALES

  • G.R. Nos. 138431-36 September 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSCORA M. ARABIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140903 September 12, 2001 - HENRY SY v. COMMISSION ON SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 00-1-4-03-SC September 13, 2001 - RE: REQUEST FOR LIVE RADIO-TV COVERAGE OF THE TRIAL IN THE SANDIGANBAYAN OF THE PLUNDER CASES AGAINST FORMER PRESIDENT JOSEPH E. ESTRADA v. JOSEPH E. ESTRADA and INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • A.M. No. 00-4-188-RTC September 13, 2001 - REQUEST OF MR. OSCAR T. LLAMAS FOR RE-ASSIGNMENT OSCAR T. LLAMAS v. EMMANUEL LACANDOLA AND ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 120009 September 13, 2001 - DOLE PHILIPPINES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 122095 September 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DOMINGO DAWISAN

  • G.R. No. 127913 September 13, 2001 - RCBC v. METRO CONTAINER CORP.

  • G.R. No. 132354 September 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEOMEDES IGLESIA

  • G.R. Nos. 136840-42 September 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO NAVARETTE

  • G.R. No. 137250-51 September 13, 2001 - PABLO MARGAREJO v. HON. ADELARDO ESCOSES

  • G.R. No. 138972-73 September 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO B. MARQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140512 September 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PETER PELERAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142043 September 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NELSON BITUON

  • G.R. No. 142430 September 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONNIE QUINICIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142444 September 13, 2001 - OFELIA D. ARTUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142649 September 13, 2001 - ANTONIO C. SAN LUIS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 143702 September 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZALDY MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 129212 September 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIO LACUESTA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1575 September 17, 2001 - ISAGANI RIZON v. JUDGE OSCAR E. ZERNA

  • A.M. No. RTJ 99-1498 September 17, 2001 - VICENTE P. LIM v. JUDGE JACINTA B. TAMBAGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111584 September 17, 2001 - PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES SALVADOR Y. CHUA and EMILIA U. CHUA

  • G.R. No. 135644 September 17, 2001 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. SPOUSES GONZALO and MATILDE LABUNG-DEANG

  • G.R. No. 135912 September 17, 2001 - ODIN SECURITY AGENCY v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138219 September 17, 2001 - GERARDO V. TAMBAOAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 138943-44 September 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY ALMAZAN

  • G.R. No. 141209 September 17, 2001 - ANTONIA HUFANA, ET AL. v. WILLIAM ONG GENATO

  • A. C. No. 5043 September 19, 2001 - ABEDIN L. OSOP v. ATTY. V. EMMANUEL C. FONTANILLA

  • G.R. No. 135936 September 19, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GUALBERTO MIRADOR alias "GOLING"

  • G.R. No. 144400 September 19, 2001 - DOMINGO O. IGNACIO v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1369 September 20, 2001 - GUILLERMA D. CABAÑERO v. JUDGE ANTONIO K. CAÑON

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1371 September 20, 2001 - ATTY. NESCITO C. HILARIO v. JUDGE ROMEO A. QUILANTANG

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1472 September 20, 2001 - SPOUSES HERMINIO, ET Al. v. HON. DEMETRIO D. CALIMAG

  • A.M. No. P-01-1483 September 20, 2001 - EDNA FE F. AQUINO v. ISABELO LAVADIA

  • G.R. No. 116938 September 20, 2001 - LEONILA GARCIA-RUEDA v. REMEDIOS A. AMOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127405 September 20, 2001 - MARJORIE TOCAO and WILLIAM T. BELO v. COURT OF APPEALS and NENITA A. ANAY

  • G.R. No. 130399 September 20, 2001 - PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT v. HON. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA

  • G.R. Nos. 135068-72 September 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO RAMOS

  • G.R. No. 137674 September 20, 2001 - WILLIAM GO KIM HUY v. SANTIAGO GO KIM HUY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139410 September 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SILVERIO AGUERO

  • G.R. No. 140898 September 20, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE ISHIKAWA AMBA

  • A.M. No. P-99-1289 September 21, 2001 - JUDGE NAPOLEON S. DIAMANTE v. ANTHONY A. ALAMBRA

  • G.R. Nos. 119609-10 September 21, 2001 - PCGG v. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (Third Division), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128876 September 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MANOLITO FELIZAR y CAPULI

  • G.R. No. 132384 September 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARLON GADIA

  • G.R. No. 134596 September 21, 2001 - RAYMUND ARDONIO v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 142889 September 21, 2001 - EXECUTIVE LABOR ARBITER RICARDO N. OLAIREZ v. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO A. DESIERTO

  • G.R. No. 145416 September 21, 2001 - GOLDEN HORIZON REALTY CORPORATION v. SY CHUAN

  • A.M. No. 99-6-79-MTC September 24, 2001 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT

  • A.M. No. P-01-1512 September 24, 2001 - TERESITA H. ZIPAGAN v. JOVENCIO N. TATTAO

  • G.R. Nos. 132442-44 September 24, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BERNARDINO ARANZADO

  • G.R. Nos. 135524-25 September 24, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MANOLITO AGUSTIN

  • G.R. No. 141897 September 24, 2001 - METRO CONSTRUCTION v. CHATHAM PROPERTIES

  • G.R. No. 144404 September 24, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LEODEGARIO BASCUGUIN Y AGQUIZ

  • G.R. Nos. 127759-60 September 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PO3 NOEL FELICIANO

  • G.R. Nos. 134527-28 September 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SERAPIO REY alias APIONG

  • G.R. Nos. 136867-68 September 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODRIGO GALVEZ y JEREZ

  • G.R. No. 137612 September 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FRANCISCO ANTINERO BERIARMENTE

  • A.C. No. 4497 September 26, 2001 - MR. and MRS. VENUSTIANO G. SABURNIDO v. ATTY. FLORANTE E. MADROÑO

  • A.C. No. 4990 September 26, 2001 - ELENA ZARATE-BUSTAMANTE and LEONORA SAVET CATABIAN v. ATTY. FLORENTINO G. LIBATIQUE

  • G.R. No. 122824 September 26, 2001 - AURORA F. IGNACIO v. VALERIANO BASILIO,

  • G.R. No. 123058 September 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO NAPUD, JR.

  • G.R. No. 129107 September 26, 2001 - ALFONSO L. IRINGAN v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS , ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 129530-31 September 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. WILFREDO OLARTE

  • G.R. Nos. 138308-10 September 26, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PABLO SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 142564 September 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HILGEM NERIO y GIGANTO

  • G.R. Nos. 143108-09 September 26, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • Adm. Case. No. 5505 September 27, 2001 - SEVERINO RAMOS v. ATTY. ELLIS JACOBA and ATTY. OLIVIA VELASCO JACOBA

  • G.R. No. 131864-65 September 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SHERJOHN ARONDAIN and JOSE PRECIOSO

  • G.R. Nos. 134963-64 September 27, 2001 - ALFREDO LONG and FELIX ALMERIA v. LYDIA BASA

  • G.R. No. 137676 September 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ATTY. ROBERTO DIONISIO

  • G.R. No. 144035 September 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE M. BASQUEZ

  • A.M. No. P-00-1391 September 28, 2001 - LIBRADA D. TORRES v. NELSON C. CABESUELA

  • G.R. No. 122425 September 28, 2001 - FLORDELIZA H. CABUHAT v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 124535 September 28, 2001 - THE RURAL BANK OF LIPA CITY, ET AL. v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125154 September 28, 2001 - DIGNA VERGEL v. COURT OF APPEALS and DOROTEA-TAMISIN GONZALES

  • G.R. No. 125442 September 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FERNANDO ARELLANO y ROBLES

  • G.R. No. 127232 September 28, 2001 - GOLDENROD v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and PATHFINDER HOLDINGS (PHILIPPINES)

  • G.R. No. 127241 September 28, 2001 - LA CONSOLACION COLLEGE, ET AL. v. NLRC , ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134128 September 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GERARDO DE LAS ERAS y ZAFRA

  • G.R. No. 134928 September 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FILOMENO BARNUEVO. ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 140789-92 September 28, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALIPIO CARBONELL and DIONISIO CARBONELL

  • G.R. No. 145371 September 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BEN AQUINO and ROMEO AQUINO

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 120009   September 13, 2001 - DOLE PHILIPPINES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 120009. September 13, 2001.]

    DOLE PHILIPPINES, INC., THOMAS W. OLIVER, MANUEL LOPEZ, ELIEZER TANLAPCO and JOEL BATISLAONG, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, (FIFTH DIVISION), JUAN A. BARRANCO, ADELA DE LARA, ZENAIDA V. VALLAGANAS, MAXIMO A. CRUZ, TERESITA A. PELAEZ, ADELAIDA C PENIG, ROBERTO P. LA-AB, JESUS B. MARITORIA, LILIA B. BALUCANAG, PANFILO PUEBLA, DELIA B. PUEBLA, RODOLFO ANTONIO, ROGELIO E. DIZON, DEMOCRITO LLOREN, FELIZA PERALES, EULALIO TEJERO, SILVESTRE PERALES, FRANCISCO ACEDO, DEMETRIO ASUQUE, LEONIDES ABUSEJO, and AIDA ARPILLEDA, Respondents.

    D E C I S I O N


    KAPUNAN, J.:


    At issue in this case is the validity of petitioner company’s redundancy program pursuant to which the respondent employees were dismissed.

    Petitioner Dole Philippines, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under Philippine laws. It is engaged in the business of growing, canning, processing and manufacturing pineapples and other allied products. The other petitioners were Dole corporate officers at the cases were instituted. 1

    Private respondents were Dole’s employees of different ranks and positions.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The petition alleges that in 1990 and 1991, Dole carried out a massive manpower reduction and restructuring program aimed at reducing the total workforce and the number of positions in the company’s table of organization. Dole intimates that the 1990-1991 reduction was a continuation of previous efforts to restructure its organization. Previously, in 1982, Dole reduced its manpower by 509 workers but prolonged collective bargaining negotiations, which ended in 1990, prevented the company from proceeding with its restructuring. 2

    Among the factors considered by the company in undertaking the reduction program was the high absenteeism rate, which in 1989 accounted for 16% of total man hours. The high absenteeism rate translated to higher paid sick leaves, higher operating costs for medical facilities, and higher transportation costs due to under-filled and late hauls. 3 Dole also cites "the exacerbation of operating cost problems due to factors beyond [its] control, i.e., the Gulf War, oil price increases, mandated wage increases, the 9% import levy, power rate hikes, [and] increased land rentals," existing at that time. Furthermore, the "bloody December 1989 coup d’etat shook investor confidence and put in doubt the continued economic progress of the country." 4

    Pursuant to its restructuring efforts, Dole abolished the positions of foremen, bargaining capatas and foreladies. Employees occupying these positions were either promoted or were dismissed on grounds of redundancy. 5

    To address the surplus of manpower relative to its operation, Dole also decided to reduce the number of employees company-wide. 6 In 1990, the company offered a Special Voluntary Resignation (SVR) program of which many employees, including a number of private respondents, availed.

    Upon approval of the applications, notices of termination 7 were sent to the employees who availed of the SVR These employees received the following benefits under the redundancy program:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    1. 40 days for every year of service;

    2. cash conversion of any earned/unused and accrued vacation leave credits;

    3. proportionate 13th month pay;

    4. one month extra pay in lieu of one month prior written notice; and

    5. relocation assistance of P3,000.00 8

    After receiving the benefits, said employee-applicants executed a "Release" 9 stating that the employee had no claims against Dole in connection with his or her employment. Subsequently, the dismissed employees executed another "Release of Claim" 10 in favor of Dole.

    A total of 2,357 hourly and monthly salaried employees were separated from Dole during this period. 11

    After assessing the outcome of the SVR, Dole found that it could still do with lesser employees, and proceeded to dismiss more of them in March 1991. 12 Separated were employees "who applied for the SVR in 1990 but whose applications were still pending as well as those . . . determined by the Company to be redundant owing to excess manpower of a surplus of employees relative to the jobs needed to be accomplish d.’’ 13 The employees dismissed during this second phase totaled 435, 14 all of whom received the following benefits:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. 40 days for every year of service;

    2. Cash conversion of accrued vacation leave credits;

    3. Proportionate 13th month pay,

    4. One month extra pay, and

    5. Relocation assistance of P3,000.00. 15

    Overall, 2,792 employees were separated under the SVR Program A total of P298,199,000.00 in benefits were paid by Dole to the separated employees. 16

    On October 22, 1991, a Complaint 17 for illegal dismissal, docketed as RAB-11-10-50401-91, was filed against petitioners before the Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission in General Santos City. Named as complainants in the caption of the complaint were "Adela L. De Lara, Roberto Laab, Sr., Teresita Pelaez, Jesus Maritoria, Maxima Cruz, Arcadio Gomera, Adelaida Penig and others." 18

    On September 18, 1992, another Complaint 19 against Dole, docketed as RAB-11-09-40318-92, was also filed before the Sub-Regional Arbitration of General Santos City. The caption of the complaint named "Lilia Balucanag, Democrito Lloren, Rogelio Dizon, Felisa Perales, Selvestra Perales, Eulalio Tejero, Panfilo Puebla, Delia Puebla, Florencia Pedroso, Rodulfo Antonio, and others" as complainants. The complaint contained similar allegations as the complaint in RAB-11-09-50318-92.

    RAB-11-10-50401-91 and RAB-11-09-50318-92 were subsequently consolidated. On 5 November 1993, Labor Arbiter Amado M. Solano rendered a decision dismissing the complaints for lack of merit. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered.

    1. Declaring the dismissal of the above-named complainants in the instant cases, as valid and lawful;

    2. The claims for reinstatement with full backwages, damages and attorney’s fees are hereby dismissed for lack of merit.

    SO ORDERED. 20

    Private respondents appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). On 29 November 1994, the NLRC issued a Resolution reversing the decision of the Labor Arbiter as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby Reversed and Set Aside and a new one entered declaring the dismissal of complainants illegal. Accordingly, respondent company is hereby ordered to reinstate herein complainants to their respective former positions or equivalent positions without loss of seniority rights and to pay complainants backwages effective from the date of their termination up to the time they are actually reinstated but not exceeding three (3) years, less the amounts they received as separation pay.

    In addition, respondent company is ordered to pay complainants moral and exemplary damages fixed in the sum of P15,000.00 and P10,000.00 each, respectively and attorney’s fees equivalent to ten (10%) percent of the aggregate monetary award, subject to computation by the Arbitration Branch of origin at the execution stage.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    SO ORDERED. 21

    Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but this was denied by the NLRC in an Order 22 issued on January 30, 1995.

    Private respondents belatedly filed an opposition to petitioners’ motion for reconsideration 23 on February 2, 1995, which the NLRC received on February 15, 1995. In said opposition private respondents also asked for a clarification concerning the actual number of complainants referred to in the Resolution of November 29, 1994. Private respondents alleged that the complaints filed with the Labor Arbiter were in the nature of a class suit; hence, the judgment award should not be limited to 21 complainants but should extend to the other complainants, numbering about 1,407.

    Meanwhile, on May 16, 1995, petitioners came to this court praying for the annulment of the NLRC Resolution and the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order to enjoin its execution.

    On July 3, 1995, the NLRC issued a Resolution granting private respondents’ motion for clarification, holding.

    There is merit to the contention of complainants that the word "complainants" in the dispositive portion of the resolution of the Commission dated November 19, 1994 should not refer exclusively to the named 21 complainants but to all the 1,413 [later corrected to 1,407] complainants. It is very evident from the records that the names and signatures of other complainants have been specified and that during the arbitration proceedings, additional lists of complainants were submitted by complainants/ movants herein . . . . 24

    The dispositive portion of the July 34 1995 NLRC Resolution reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    WHEREFORE, the instant motion for clarification is granted. Accordingly, the complaints referred in the dispositive portion of the resolution of this Commission dated November 29, 1994 are the employees numbering about 1,407 (as corrected) whose names are listed in Annexes "A", "A-1" to "A-14" and "B", "B-1" to "B-9" and forming an integral part of this resolution.

    SO ORDERED.25cralaw:red

    In reaction to the adverse resolution, petitioners filed on August 14, 1995 in this Court a supplement to their petition for certiorari, assailing the July 3, 1995 Resolution of the NLRC and reiterating their prayer for a preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order.

    On August 21, 1995, this Court issued a Resolution 26 granting the temporary restraining order prayed for.

    The issues for this Court’s resolution are:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I


    WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO WANT OR ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION IN SUBSTITUTING ITS OWN JUDGMENT ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A NECESSITY FOR THE REDUNDANCY PROGRAM IN PETITIONER FIRM.

    II


    WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN HOLDING THE RELEASE OF CLAIMS SIGNED BY THE DISMISSED EMPLOYEES TO BE OF NO LEGAL EFFECT.

    III


    WHETHER OF NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ORDERING THE REINSTATEMENT OF THE EMPLOYEES WHO WERE DISMISSED UNDER A VALID REDUNDANCY PROGRAM.

    IV


    WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN HOLDING THAT THE REDUNDANCY PROGRAM WAS INVALID FOR WANT OF THE NECESSARY NOTICE TO THE DOLE.

    V


    WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT ISSUED THE CLARIFICATORY ORDER DECLARING 1,407 PERSONS AS NEW COMPLAINANTS.

    VI


    WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN AWARDING MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AS WELL AS ATTORNEY’S FEES TO PRIVATE RESPONDENT. 27

    We shall examine the first assigned error, which involves the validity of petitioner’s redundancy program.

    Redundancy is one of the authorized causes for the dismissal of an employee. 28 In the leading case of Wiltshire File Co. Inc. v. NLRC, 29 we explained the nature of redundancy as an authorized cause for dismissal:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    . . . redundancy in an employer’s personnel force necessarily or even ordinarily refers to duplication of work. That no other person was holding the same position that private respondent held prior to the termination of his services, does not show that his position had not become redundant. Indeed, in any well-organized business enterprise, it would be surprising to find duplication of work and two (2) or more people doing the work of one person. We believe that redundancy, for purposes of the Labor Code, exists where the services of an employee are in excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of the enterprise. Succinctly put, a position is redundant where it is superfluous, and superfluity of a position or positions may be the outcome of a number of factors, such as overhiring of workers, decreased volume of business, or dropping of a particular product line or service activity previously manufactured or undertaken by the enterprise.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    We held, moreover, that the characterization of an employee’s services as no longer necessary or sustainable, and, therefore, properly terminable, is an exercise of business judgment on the part of the employer. The wisdom or soundness of such characterization or decision is not subject to discretionary review provided, of course, that violation of law or arbitrary or malicious action is not shown.

    Dole’s redundancy program does not appear to be tainted by bad faith. The petition alleges that the redundancy program is part of a wide-scale restructuring of the company. This purported restructuring is supported by the company’s undisputed history towards these ends, which culminated in the abolition of certain positions and the Special Voluntary Resignation program in 1990-1991. Among the avowed goals of such restructuring is the reduction of absenteeism in the company. The harsh economic and political climate then prevailing in the country also emphasized the need for cost-saving measures.

    Reorganization as a cost-saving device is acknowledged by jurisprudence. An employer is not precluded from adopting a new policy conducive to a more economical and effective management, 30 and the law does not require that the employer should be suffering financial losses before he can terminate the services of the employee on the ground of redundancy. 31

    Private respondents submit, however, that the subsequent hiring of casual employees to replace the dismissed regular employees is an indication of bad faith. petitioner does not deny that they hired casual employees after the implementation of the redundancy program. Petitioner explains, however, that it has always hired casual to augment the company’s manpower requirements in accordance with the demands of the industry. Petitioner further asserts that the number of casuals remained relatively constant after the implementation of the redundancy program, as shown by the graph appended as Annex "J" 32 of its supplement to the motion for reconsideration before the NLRC. The Court finds the foregoing explanation sufficient to negate the allegations of bad faith by its former employees.

    Private respondents also point references in petitioner’s studies of the redundancy program to the elimination of "undesirable," "abuses" and "worst performers" as another indicia of petitioners bad faith. The Court is not too keen on attaching such a sinister significance to these illusions, however. It may be argued that the elimination of the so-called "undesirables" was merely incidental to the redundancy program or that past transgressions could have been part of the criteria in determining who among the redundant employees is to be dismissed.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Private respondents harp on the fact that petitioner’s desire to save on labor costs was the motivation for the redundancy program. The law, however, does not prevent employers from saving on labor costs. This court has recognized such right. In International Madeod, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, supra, this Court found that the appointment by the company to the International Heavy Equipment Corporation as its dealer with the government rendered redundant the position of Government Relations Officer held by the private respondent therein. It was held that the determination of the need for the phasing out of a department as a labor and cost saving device because it was no longer economical to retain said department is a management prerogative, with which the courts will not interfere.

    In De Ocampo v. National Labor Relations Commission, 33 the Court similarly ruled that" [t]he reduction of the number of workers in a company made necessary by the introduction of the services of Gemac Machineries in the maintenance and repair of its industrial machinery is justified. There can be no question as to the right of the company to contract the services of Gemac Machineries to replace the services rendered by the terminated mechanics with a view to effecting more economic and efficient methods of production." So long as the undertaking to save on labor costs is not attended by malice, arbitrariness, or intent on the part of the employer to circumvent the law, as in this case, the Court will not interfere with such endeavor.

    The lack of notice to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) does not render the redundancy program void. Petitioner accurately invokes International Harvester, Inc. v. NLRC 34

    . . . if an employee consented to his retrenchment or voluntarily applied for retrenchment with the employer due to the installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, closure or cessation of operation or to prevent financial losses to the business of the employer, the required previous notice to the DOLE is not necessary as the employee thereby acknowledged the existence of a valid cause for termination of his employment.

    Here, most of the private respondents even filled up application forms to be considered for the redundancy program and thus acknowledged the existence that their services were redundant.

    In any case, private respondents executed two releases in favor of petitioner company. Not all quitclaims are per se invalid or against public policy. But those (1) where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person or (2) where the terms of settlement are unconscionable on their face are invalid. In these cases, the law will step in to annul the questionable transaction. 35 There is no showing here that private respondents are unsuspecting or gullible persons. Neither are the terms of the settlement unconscionable. Indeed, private respondents received a generous separation package, as set out in the narration of facts above.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the decision of the NLRC ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The temporary restraining order issued by this Court on August 21, 1995 is LIFTED.

    SO ORDERED.

    Davide Jr., CJ., Pardo and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

    Puno, J., on official leave.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, pp. 3-4.

    2. Id., at 4-5.

    3. Id., at 5.

    4. Id., at 24.

    5. Id., at 5-6.

    6. Id. at 6.

    7. Annexes "L" to "S" of Petition; Rollo. pp. 108-113.

    8. Annexes "F" to "K" of Petition; Rollo, pp. 99-105.

    9. Annexes "BB" to "II" of Petition; Rollo, pp. 122-129

    10. Annexes "JJ" to "Q" of Petition; Rollo, pp. 130-137.

    11. Rollo, pp. 9-10.

    12. Id., at 23.

    13. Id., at 10.

    14. Id., at 11-12.

    15. Id., at 11.

    16. Id., at 12.

    17. II Records, pp. 1-12.

    18. The complaint was originally for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, damages and attorney’s fees" and included the Pawis ng Makabayang Obrero-National Federation of Labor a (PAMAO-NFL) as one of the respondents. The complaint was however later amended dropping the union as a party.

    19. I Records, pp. 1-12.

    20. II Records, p. 500.

    21. Rollo, p. 51.

    22. Id., at 53-55.

    23. III Records, pp. 390-397

    24. Rollo, p. 172.

    25. Id., at 174.

    26. Id., at 312-313.

    27. Rollo, pp. 757-758.

    28. LABOR CODE, ARTICLE 283.

    29. 193 SCRA 665 (1991).

    30. International Harvester, Inc. v. NLRC, 149 SCRA 641 (1987).

    31. Escareal v. National Labor Relations Commission 213 SCRA 472 (1992).

    32. III Records, p. 530.

    33. 213 SCRA 652 (1992).

    34. 176 SCRA 256 (1989).

    35. Lambo v. National Labor Relations Commission, 317 SCRA 420 (1999).

    G.R. No. 120009   September 13, 2001 - DOLE PHILIPPINES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED